Contrary to the opinion expressed earlier this week, there is actually a good deal of consensus on the issue of paid parking in the downtown among those on the parking task force. More divided is the group on where the specific site should be in the downtown for a parking garage.
Those we spoke to this week question whether there will be a new parking garage any time in the near future, given the loss of RDA money and the uncertainty of new funding mechanisms.
Chuck Roe wrote in his letter to the task force, that was reprinted in part in the local newspaper, arguing for parking meters throughout the downtown, noting the successful downtowns like San Luis Obispo and Boulder.
“Set them to the lowest cost on a block-by-block basis that results in a fraction of empty spaces on each block. Paid parking would get the downtown workers out of their every two-hour free parking dance and it would assure a few empty spaces if you really need to park near your destination. It also would create a revenue stream,” he writes.
Chuck Roe argues, “We need strong leadership on this because there will always be those who claim it will kill the downtown. Tell that to Boulder and San Luis Obispo.”
I have only been to Boulder a few times, but I grew up in San Luis Obispo, so I can speak to the downtown parking situation there.
I question the utility of simply going to paid parking without building a new parking facility. The system works fairly well in San Luis Obispo. There are actually three types of meters. There are the short-term meters, only 30-minute parking that operates similar to how the green spots work in Davis. If you have a quick stop and want to go in and out of a place of business, these work well.
They also have two-hour parking spaces and, at least when I lived there (now quickly approaching 20 years ago), they had long-term parking (six hours or so). The closer you want to park, the shorter your stay has to be, and that makes sense.
To augment the street parking, San Luis Obispo has multiple parking garages. When I was there, the first 90 minutes in a parking garage was free, and after that there was an hourly rate.
This system could work in Davis. The idea would be to have short-term metered parking on the streets for short trips. Those who work downtown should not be parking on the street and should park in garages.
Those who wish to come downtown for a lengthier trip, likewise, can park and walk.
My suggestion continues to be for an Olive Street access to a parking garage that ends up around F and 1st Street.
The advantage of that approach is to divert traffic coming from I-80 and South Davis from going through the underpass. People could park in that structure and be within three blocks of much of the core downtown area.
That would open up surface street parking for people willing to pay for meters, and for short-term visitors who have a quick shopping trip to make.
It would also lessen the load on the streets and make the downtown more friendly to bikes and pedestrians.
Right now, it is not just congested – there are safety hazards. Bicyclists often get a bad rap, blowing through stop signs, but I have been nearly hit just as often by cars, confused as to whose turn it is to head through an intersection, particularly when there are not only four-way stops, but bikes and pedestrians.
The downtown task force has tackled some other issues, as well.
For example, they seem agreeable to extending the parking enforcement schedule from the current 8 am to 6 pm, to 10 am to 8 pm. That has an interesting advantage. Early in the morning, parking is not an issue and 8 am seems too early to start enforcement. However, traffic problems persist into the evening as people frequent restaurants and bars.
The second issue targets one of my pet peeves – double-parking during peak lunch hours. It is often delivery vehicles, but also cars that simply stop in the middle of the street. I cannot tell you how often traffic gets backed up waiting for the vehicle that is essentially stopped to move or to get around the delivery vehicle.
This is both a safety hazard and a cause of congestion. A safety hazard because people take lots of unnecessary risks to get around stopped vehicles. In big cities we see double-parking frequently because there are no parking spaces available, or the delivery vehicles are too large for standard spots.
The difference there is that there are often multiple lanes of traffic and, therefore, moving around the vehicle is relatively safe and backups are minimized.
With single lanes, stopped vehicles are difficult to get around and typically produce huge backups that back traffic into other blocks, with a cascading effect.
There seems to be considerable reluctance to deal with some of these issues. Paid parking meters figure to be controversial and, of course, funding remains a concern for parking structures.
Will we finally be able to address some of these problems? That remains to be seen.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Our youngest spent 4 yrs at SLO and I found the parking situation moe frustrating than Davis. Not only was it harder to find a place (perhaps I wasn’t as familiar with the terrain) but then you had to have change…..maybe now they have credit machines…..but it seemed that there was paid only in the very core and you could try to find free street parking off the main streets. How would that work in Davis? We seems to have a larger core number of streets than SLO, tho not as long. 1st and B to 5th and G?
Thanks Soda for pointing out that SLO isn’t the Shangri-La that some would have you believe.
SODA: I thinks its a familiarity issue. Keep in mind, things have changed a lot since I moved out in 1996.
GI: I don’t think parking fees are going to generate much more over the parking fines we now have.
[quote]GI: I don’t think parking fees are going to generate much more over the parking fines we now have.[/quote]
What are you talking about? It will be much easier to give out parking fine tickets for out of time parked cars than ever before. So the city will be collecting for parking fines on top of parking fees. Charging for parking isn’t going to improve anything with the acception of the downtown workers having to either pay or look for alternative parking. I think there are better ways to get those workers to park in the garages than to charge everyone to park.
“For example, they seem agreeable to extend the parking enforcement schedule from the current 8 am to 6 pm to 10 am to 8 pm. That has an interesting advantage. Early in the morning, parking is not an issue and 8 am seems too early to start enforcement. However, traffic problems persist into the evening as people frequent restaurants and bars.”
I agree with pushing enforcement until 10:00, sense parking doesn’t really become an issue until lunch time (at least on weekdays, and as long as people park after 6:00 PM the 8:00 PM end of enforcement won’t be an issue for those wanting to hang out downtown for more then 2 hours in the evening.(and discourage restaurant and bar employees from parking on the street if there shift begins before 6:00.)
During a recent conversation about whether or not we have enough parking garages, I was reminded of how important the phrasing of one’s point of view can affecting ones perception of need. The comment was made that the parking garages are, during peak hours, nearly full. I focused on the work “nearly” as the key here.
Isn’t this what we want a parking garage to be….”nearly” full, but with a few spaces available at any given time ?
From my 25 years of experience with downtown parking, the only times that I have been unable to find a parking space in one of the garages is at peak hour, opening of a blockbuster movie. And that has been only once or twice. So are we really considering building yet another parking garage when we already have two as well as four parking lots downtown, with another free lot within an easy couple of blocks walk of the northern portion of downtown if you include the co-op lot ?
What we really have here is the unwillingness of people to get out of their cars and walk a few blocks, not a lack of parking spaces. Surely there are more creative ways to address this. A friend of mine recently proposed a donation driven bicycle powered shuttle service throughout downtown run by service organizations attempting to fund raise. I can easily see this as an alternative to the ever present high school car wash fund raiser.
I am sure that if a few of the business folks downtown were to recruit their own and their neighbors teenagers,
a more stable pool of bicycle conveyance could be put together by offering low wage jobs to kids ( or others) who want more pocket money much as the Pepper Peddler was doing for awhile. We have a very creative, innovative community. Can we really not find a better solution than a very expensive, very unhealthy, very unsightly parking garage ?
Medwoman, I agree with you about not needing another ugly parking garage as the two we have now are hardly ever full. I can’t go along with the pedestrian only downtown idea. How about the people that want to just drive downtown, pick up a pizza or cup of coffee, then take it home. Are they going to go through the trouble of parking on the perimeter, either riding a bike or walking to the store, picking up their goods and walking back to the garage? I don’t think so, I think they’ll say to heck with it.
I have been apparently unlucky in finding a full F St garage on weekdays and weekend days, unless I get there by 8:30am…and all evenings also unless I get there by 6pm or so…
GI
Hmmm… I see your point. I would have to weigh the pros and cons of that one. Although, I think most likely shops to be affected would be the Star Bucks and Peets, not so much the local businesses. Malls seem to get around this impediment just fine, but are usually also automobile based which I would like to avoid.
If you want to look at actual data about parking usage, go to the Downtown Parking Task Force minutes. In particular, the April 3 2013 meeting has useful maps;
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/on-going-committees/downtown-parking-task-force/meeting-5-april-3rd-2013[/url]
highbeam
I do have to agree that I think the G street parking structure does tend to be less impacted than F st.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Comeon, this has nothing to do with improving the parking situation, it’s all about putting more money in the city coffers.”[/i]
Medwoman said . . .
“What we really have here is the unwillingness of people to get out of their cars and walk a few blocks, not a lack of parking spaces.”
If the impetus to address parking in Davis were coming from City Hall, I would agree with Growth Izzue. However, it is not. The impetus is coming from the business community. No government conspiracy here . . . at least this time.
I believe Medwoman has hit the nail on the head, and I would expand her “unwillingness to walk” issue to include the employees/workers at downtown businesses. Chuck Roe’s quote, [i]”Paid parking would get the downtown workers out of their every two-hour free parking dance . . .”[/i] really resonates with me. The perfect place for downtown worker parking is in the top two floors of the G Street garage and the F Street garage. The resistance I have heard from one prominent downtown business owner is that such a solution would be a “burden” on the employees (forcing them to walk from the garage to their place of work at the beginning of their work day and at the end of their work day) and would create a chronic “employee lateness” problem that would be a burden on business owners.
Is our downtown really that big that walking from one of the City’s garages to a place of business is a “burden”?
Circling back to Growth Izzue’s revenue issue, there is one part of Chuck Roe’s quote that I believe needs some expansion, specifically where he says, [i]”and it would assure a few empty spaces if you really need to park near your destination. It also would create a revenue stream,”[/i] The one thing we do not want paid parking to do is discourage patrons from coming to businesses because they resent having to pay for parking. The easy way to address that issue is to create a parking rebate program used by the businesses when customers come to shop in their store or eat in their restaurant or use their professional services. When one of those businesses gives a parking rebate to a customer that buys something or consumes something or uses their services, then they will give the customer a parking rebate. The businesses that give parking rebaters will share in the revenue generated by the meters so that a zero-sum business driver is created. Customers will know that when they head downtown to make a purchase they will not be paying a “parking tax” on top of the sales taxes they already pay. If the parking is handled the same way street parking is handled in much of downtown Sacramento the customer will arrive at the busines with the receipt in hand that they just got from the parking machine. That will minimize “gaming the system.”
That would be my ideal solution.
highbeam said . . .
[i]”I have been apparently unlucky in finding a full F St garage on weekdays and weekend days, unless I get there by 8:30am…and all evenings also unless I get there by 6pm or so…”[/i]
highbeam, when th F Street garage is full, do you go to the G Street garage?
Matt:
[quote]The resistance I have heard from one prominent downtown business owner is that such a solution would be a “burden” on the employees (forcing them to walk from the garage to their place of work at the beginning of their work day and at the end of their work day) and would create a chronic “employee lateness” problem that would be a burden on business owners.
Is our downtown really that big that walking from one of the City’s garages to a place of business is a “burden”?
[/quote]
Why would business owners consider it a burden for their employees but not for their customers to have to park in a garage? As far as their employees being late to work well they’ll just have to leave home a few minutes earlier in order to park in the garages. If they’re cronically late then you fire them.
Don
Thanks for once again steering us towards some actual information rather than relying on our often contradictory personal opinions and experiences. On a very first glance, I looked with interest at the 2013 updated usage survey which seems to address the point GI and I were discussing.
Only 7.2 % of the respondents indicated that when they go downtown, they spend
Matt and medwoman, yes, of course i have had to go farther away from my destination (which has usually been south end of E to B streets)…the G street structure i have never found full, but if i am on that side of downtown i usually also find street parking (of course, for a movie, i will pick the structure for the longer time parking – and in G street you can add to the 3 hours)…i would bike more, but i am about 3.5 miles from downtown and often have time constraints…
medwoman I think the website software is seeing some of the special characters you are using in your post as “instructions” rather than content. You may want to spell out the words that are the equivalent of the special characters you are using.
Thanks Matt
Maybe the third time will be the charm.
With regard to the 2013 parking utilization survey :
1) Only 7.2 percent of respondents indicated that they visit downtown for 20 minutes or less. This would seem to imply to me that while this would inconvenience the few “coffee and pizza” pick up folks, it would have small
impact overall on the downtown businesses.
2) Another pair of questions stood out for me.
While 68.82 percent said that current parking impacted their enjoyment of their time downtown, 99.03% said they planned to visit downtown again. This leaves me wondering, other than the griping that we as humans seem to love to do, how much real impact the current parking situation has on the actual number or trips to downtown.
Finally, some questions I would like to have seen included:
1) What distance from your primary destination would preclude you making a trip downtown ?
2) Would the same distance from your parking spot to the entrance preclude a visit to Target or another
“big box” destination ?
3) Would you utilize a combination of means of transportation, your own car and another means of conveyance
if that were readily available ?
[quote]The easy way to address that issue is to create a parking rebate program used by the businesses when customers come to shop in their store or eat in their restaurant or use their professional services. When one of those businesses gives a parking rebate to a customer that buys something or consumes something or uses their services, then they will give the customer a parking rebate. The businesses that give parking rebaters will share in the revenue generated by the meters so that a zero-sum business driver is created. Customers will know that when they head downtown to make a purchase they will not be paying a “parking tax” on top of the sales taxes they already pay.[/quote]
I am completely in agreement with Matt that this would be a simple and elegant solution to this part of the problem and would likely have the added benefit of building good will between customer and participating business.
[quote]Only 7.2 percent of respondents indicated that they visit downtown for 20 minutes or less. This would seem to imply to me that while this would inconvenience the few “coffee and pizza” pick up folks, it would have small
impact overall on the downtown businesses. [/quote]
Okay, tell any downtown merchant that they might lose 7.2% of their business and see what kind of response you get. I often go to downtown to pick up Subway sandwiches, Hunan Chinese takeout, Panera Bread soup, I could go on forever. Would I go if I had the hassle of parking far away and then navigating getting there I doubt it. How about someone who buys a large item from Ace that they normally would stick in the trunk of their car that they now have to lug it to some distant garage?
GI, if there were metered parking and you had to add 50 cents to the purchase price of your Subway sandwich, Hunan Chinese takeout, or Panera Bread soup would you stop going?
[i]buys a large item[/i]
Exactly GI.
This gets us to the “cake and eat it too” problem.
Convenience is a big shopping decision for most people. Going to dinner or a movie… well I would accept having to go 10-15 minutes early to park and walk. But I would not accept this for utility shopping where my time is a big consideration. If Davis downtown is going to be protected by many as being the de-facto full-service retail location for the town, then convenience has to be factored.
Comeon, this has nothing to do with improving the parking situation, it’s all about putting more money in the city coffers.
[quote] But I would not accept this for utility shopping where my time is a big consideration.[/quote]
Nor would most people. Most of the parking-related proposals here (bike jitneys, parking garage on Olive Drive, etc.) would not help. This has been studied and studied, and the downtown merchants have made it clear this issue is a top priority. I’m afraid no extra parking garage is going to be built; that opportunity has passed. So they will probably implement the smaller recommended changes and leave it at that. Not optimal, but it’s the best we are likely to get.
Another modest proposal. How about downtown businesses chip in on freely available community owned bicycles. They offer a small incentive to their employees to park on the perimeter of town and use a free bicycle to ride to and from their car ? Would avoid at least some of the “musical chair” approach to downtown parking of employees thus freeing space for shoppers.
Or how about a bolder step, make the 5 or so square blocks of downtown a pedestrian only mall with easy bicycle access and with a a very short interval shuttle service for those who must or insist upon using their cars. Malls have been proven to be a successful business model as in Roseville, Arden Fair, San Francisco and many, many others communities. Why not convert downtown to a large, attractive, outdoor mall rather than trying to endlessly reconfigure downtown parking ? This would be the only circumstance under which I would support yet another parking structure regardless of location.
I have hesitated to comment here because I am a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force so PLEASE understand that what I am writing here represents my views only and I speak only for myself. A few things:
1. Paid parking: one challenge we face concerns people “over consuming” a free good. This is a common econ 101 problem and time limits on block faces do not solve it. All the literature I have read on parking management demonstrates that charging for parking creates more free spaces closer to where people want to park. Paid parking is thus, first and foremost, a parking management tool that actually helps free up the most sought after spaces.
2. Everything I have read about paid parking suggest it works best when the revenue generated by it stays within the parking district where it is generated to create more supply or improve streetscapes (People come to our downtown to dine/shop/be entertained but also because it is a pleasant experience. Improving streetscapes enhances that.). If parking revenue goes into the City’s general fund, support for paid parking will dissolve. It would be a big mistake to do this.
3. Our downtown is unique and not unique:
*It is unique: When people say they will abandon it if they are required to pay for parking and go to Woodland or Target instead I am puzzled. Woodland does not have what our downtown has. You cannot see a movie or dine at Target. The downtown experience is unique.
*It is not unique: Free parking leads to overuse and lack of supply. All cities face this problem and we are not unique. Requiring payment for parking eases overuse (see above).
4. A peripheral parking garage needs to be managed too and should be for two types of users: those who want to stay longer in the downtown (employees for example) and those who are willing to walk further and park for free. The G Street Garage is underutilized for many reasons but better signage and management could help fill it up, freeing up street spaces.
5. I believe that the Task Force will send a unanimous or near unanimous recommendation to the City Council to start planning for another parking structure to provide for users in the categories above. I am convinced of two things based on the data we have seen: a) currently, better management of our supply will enable us to keep occupancy rates at 85% or below on each block. b) with the growth of UC Davis alone we will need more parking in the not-too-distant future.
Of course the location of a future garage is the challenge. I had thought we had an opportunity to negotiate with the University to partner on a structure at the current University lot at A and 1st. However, I have learned that that site may contain Native American remains and thus may never be further developed. This raises the question of where to site a garage. My personal problem with a structure in the heart of downtown (3/4/E/F) is that it brings cars to exactly the spot where we do not want more cars–the heart of downtown. I support a structure on the periphery and think that if the current rail spur running on the west side of the train station is moved (it could happen!), then that opens up the Amtrak lot as a potential garage site.
Rest assured that the Task Force has looked at utilization data, is committed to collecting more as we implement the comprehensive changes we are moving towards recommending and is looking for ways to push long-term parking out of the core to create more opportunities for visitors and shoppers.
One final note: Next time you see Brian Abbanat of the City, congratulate him for ably shepherding a VERY diverse group of Task Force members to bring us towards sending a comprehensive set of recommendations to the CC.
I think ultimately the voters should decide if we want to go to paid parking and whether we build another garage or not. After all, we’re the ones who will mostly be paying for it.
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”I have hesitated to comment here because I am a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force so PLEASE understand that what I am writing here represents my views only and I speak only for myself. A few things:
1. Paid parking: one challenge we face concerns people “over consuming” a free good. This is a common econ 101 problem and time limits on block faces do not solve it. All the literature I have read on parking management demonstrates that charging for parking creates more free spaces closer to where people want to park. Paid parking is thus, first and foremost, a parking management tool that actually helps free up the most sought after spaces.
2. Everything I have read about paid parking suggest it works best when the revenue generated by it stays within the parking district where it is generated to create more supply or improve streetscapes (People come to our downtown to dine/shop/be entertained but also because it is a pleasant experience. Improving streetscapes enhances that.). If parking revenue goes into the City’s general fund, support for paid parking will dissolve. It would be a big mistake to do this.”[/i]
Thanks for weighing in Robb. I think you are spot on with your first two points above.
Ok the bulk of my comment somehow was deleted, so I will try again.
Only 7.2 % of respondents indicated that when they go downtown, they spend
“Everything I have read about paid parking suggest it works best when the revenue generated by it stays within the parking district where it is generated to create more supply or improve streetscapes….”
What have you read about this, Matt? It sounds like a fine idea to me, but I wonder just how much there is out there in your world of “everything.”
This triggered a new thought for me. Why do we spend so many millions of tax dollars providing support for our downtown businesses? Do we see this as an investment that will be returned in sales tax receipts?
There must be some logic behind viewing the downtown businesses so much differently than we view shopping mall businesses, for example. If mall businesses want more parking, private business pays for and provides it.
When we come down to it, the only reason for spending time and money on downtown infrastructure would be to make it a better place for our citizens (rather than the business owners), right?
JustSaying – I wrote the above quote, not Matt. Members of the Downtown Parking Task Force were given a large number of studies on the issue of parking (available online with our meeting packets) but the classic work on this is Donald Shoup’s [i]The High Cost of Free Parking[/i], which lays out a convincing case for the value of paid parking and the need to link it to keeping revenue generated in the zone where it is generated. I am not claiming to be an expert but I have taken the time to read all documents and Shoup’s book (and several of his other writings). It is on that basis that I wrote what I wrote.
On the issue of “mall businesses”–cities provide zoning allowances that permit huge tracks of land to be used for “free” parking to these establishments. Often the amount provided far exceeds the usual demand thus there is an opportunity cost to providing land for this use. Free parking anywhere is a myth and public entities usually subsidize it no matter where it exists.
BTW–I did not say I had read “everything” but merely that “everything” I had read had led me to this conclusion.
Robb, thanks and sorry. I’m limited to a telephone that allow viewing only five lines at a time and a memory that works for only four lines. I understood the limits of “everything” and appreciate knowing the sources you’ve listed.
Please explain a little more about private vs. public investments. Are you saying that the City of Davis spent tax money to subsidize the Target mall operation (or through some “zoning allowance”–how would that work)?
Obviously, I haven’t yet refined this new concept (questioning why we spend redevelopment and other tax monies on more free parking structures that downtown businesses want).
Matt:
[quote]Deciding to go to paid parking has no capital cost and as such will not fall under the category of “we’re the ones who will mostly be paying for it” and as such I can’t see how a citizen vote makes any sense. [/quote]
The citizens of Davis will use the downtown parking on a much higher percentage than outsiders so yes, “we’re the ones who will mostly be paying for it” is a coreect statement and I think we should be allowed a vote on whether we want it or not.
GI, you obviously didn’t read my earlier post. If what I suggested is implemented, anyone who makes a purchase will not in the end be paying anything.
[quoteMatt Williams
08/10/13 – 10:12 AM
]Circling back to Growth Izzue’s revenue issue, there is one part of Chuck Roe’s quote that I believe needs some expansion, specifically where he says, “and it would assure a few empty spaces if you really need to park near your destination. It also would create a revenue stream,” The one thing we do not want paid parking to do is discourage patrons from coming to businesses because they resent having to pay for parking. The easy way to address that issue is to create a parking rebate program used by the businesses when customers come to shop in their store or eat in their restaurant or use their professional services. When one of those businesses gives a parking rebate to a customer that buys something or consumes something or uses their services, then they will give the customer a parking rebate. The businesses that give parking rebaters will share in the revenue generated by the meters so that a zero-sum business driver is created. Customers will know that when they head downtown to make a purchase they will not be paying a “parking tax” on top of the sales taxes they already pay. If the parking is handled the same way street parking is handled in much of downtown Sacramento the customer will arrive at the busines with the receipt in hand that they just got from the parking machine. That will minimize “gaming the system.”
That would be my ideal solution.[/quote]
You also didn’t answer my prior question to you. Here it is again. What say you?
[quote]08/10/13 – 12:57 PM
…
GI, if there were metered parking and you had to add 50 cents to the purchase price of your Subway sandwich, Hunan Chinese takeout, or Panera Bread soup would you stop going?[/quote]
[quote]GI, you obviously didn’t read my earlier post. If what I suggested is implemented, anyone who makes a purchase will not in the end be paying anything. [/quote]
Who says what you suggested is going to get implemented?
Matt, if going downtown to grab a cup at Starbucks was going to cost me an extra 50 cents yes I would curtail my trips.
Your comment addressed my comments, in which I set out the parameters that that solution not only makes sense, but would get implemented. That couldn’t have been any clearer if it had been a rattlesnake and bitten you on your leg.
[quote]That couldn’t have been any clearer if it had been a rattlesnake and bitten you on your leg. [/quote]
That’s how I feel about these commissions that are always wanting to take something away or charge a fee for what has been free in the past, they’re like rattlesnakes biting the public on the leg.
Are we going to charge a fee for bikes to park downtown? I mean they’re taking up street space, I’m sure the city incurs costs repairing and installing the bike racks and they also contribute to the downtown conjestion.
In all the time you have been posting on this blog you have batted 1.000. Your posts always point out problems, but NEVER work toward any solutions. I’m not sure why you changed your screen name to Growth Izzue from its previous incarnation, but clearly it is time for you to assume a new screen name . . . Mr. Tetley
When you are prepared to try and contribute in a constructive way toward solving problems, not just pointing them out, then you will be a wortthwhile member of the Davis community, until then feel free to slther back into your hole.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Are we going to charge a fee for bikes to park downtown? I mean they’re taking up street space, I’m sure the city incurs costs repairing and installing the bike racks and they also contribute to the downtown conjestion.”[/i]
The issue isn’t downtown congestion. The issue is available parking spaces. Last time I checked there were as many as 10 bicycle parking spaces contained in the same area as one automobile parking space, so practically speaking charging a bicycle 1/10th of the amount per hour as a car is charged makes no sense whatsoever.
Just out of curiosity, how many automobile parking spaces are displaced by bicycle spaces? I know there is at least one outside Our House on 2nd Street. Are there any others? I can’t think of any. I suspect your question is one Mr. Tetley would ask.
Then there are those who think they know how everyone else should live, who feel they must change what has been working because they know better than you. You know, the ones who are the know-it-alls and know what’s good for everyone else whether they know it or not.
Medwoman:
[quote]From my 25 years of experience with downtown parking, the only times that I have been unable to find a parking space in one of the garages is at peak hour, opening of a blockbuster movie. And that has been only once or twice.[/quote] I have lived in Davis about half as long as you, but I’ve had several instances when I couldn’t find a spot and left the core. Probably because, as you say, you almost always walk downtown?
Medwoman:
[quote] What we really have here is the unwillingness of people to get out of their cars and walk a few blocks, not a lack of parking spaces. [/quote] It’s more than that. As I said in the last thread, I’m MORE than happy to walk/ride my bike. There are many other issues…most notably, having to pay for parking and/or having to move one’s car after X hours. It’s one thing to do as you do and walk downtown and enjoy your time there. It’s quite another to park several blocks from your destination, perhaps pay for X hours, unload strollers and diaper bags and a few kids, and hustle from one destination to another, hoping to make it back in time to your car before you get a ticket.
Medwoman:
[quote]Or how about a bolder step, make the 5 or so square blocks of downtown a pedestrian only mall [/quote] I’m no urban planner, but I love this idea. One thing I’ve always said Davis lacks is either a town square or “main street.” A central place that feels like the “heart” of Davis. My sense is that what businesses lack in people driving in and zipping into/out of the area would more than be made up for by all of the foot traffic. They’d probably command the highest rent.
Matt Williams: [quote] The one thing we do not want paid parking to do is discourage patrons from coming to businesses because they resent having to pay for parking. The easy way to address that issue is to create a parking rebate program used by the businesses when customers come to shop in their store or eat in their restaurant or use their professional services. When one of those businesses gives a parking rebate to a customer that buys something or consumes something or uses their services, then they will give the customer a parking rebate. The businesses that give parking rebaters will share in the revenue generated by the meters so that a zero-sum business driver is created. Customers will know that when they head downtown to make a purchase they will not be paying a “parking tax” on top of the sales taxes they already pay. If the parking is handled the same way street parking is handled in much of downtown Sacramento the customer will arrive at the busines with the receipt in hand that they just got from the parking machine. That will minimize “gaming the system.” [/quote] Love. I’ve said here at Vanguard before that I really hate paying for parking…for the “honor” of spending my money downtown. I understand that it isn’t the most rational perspective, and that there are practical reasons behind timed parking zones and all. But I work hard for every last dollar. I don’t plop 3 bucks into a parking meter without resenting it.
GI: [quote] Why would business owners consider it a burden for their employees but not for their customers to have to park in a garage? As far as their employees being late to work well they’ll just have to leave home a few minutes earlier in order to park in the garages. If they’re chronically late then you fire them. [/quote] YES! Seriously…pass along the inconvenience to your customers? And if the employees can’t compensate for looking for a parking spot…well, that is a skill they need to learn. Just like they might need to learn that they will hit highway traffic, or a bus will be late, or any number common occurrence we ALL have to face.
Medwoman: [quote] “While 68.82 percent said that current parking impacted their enjoyment of their time downtown, 99.03% said they planned to visit downtown again.” This leaves me wondering, other than the griping that we as humans seem to love to do, how much real impact the current parking situation has on the actual number or trips to downtown. [/quote] What that response doesn’t address is HOW often those 99.03% plan on visiting downtown again…and how often they would visit again if the current parking didn’t impact their enjoyment. I‘m the perfect example. The parking affects my enjoyment of downtown, but I’ll go back again. Except instead of going 3-4 times per week, I go 3-4 times per month.
Sorry if some of my points get addressed later in the thread…I have to stop reading now, right before Robb Davis’ post. And Medwoman, sorry to disproportionately “disagree” with you. I’m just going through the posts and responding to what interests me. Thus I must find you interesting. 🙂
Matt:
[quote]I suspect your question is one Mr. Tetley would ask. [/quote]
My question was meant to be facetious as in will some commission go after bikes next? But thank you anyway for you detailed answer. LOL
Ginger said . . .
[i]”It’s more than that. As I said in the last thread, I’m MORE than happy to walk/ride my bike. [b]There are many other issues…most notably, having to pay for parking and/or having to move one’s car after X hours.[/b] It’s one thing to do as you do and walk downtown and enjoy your time there. It’s quite another to park several blocks from your destination, perhaps pay for X hours, unload strollers and diaper bags and a few kids, and hustle from one destination to another, hoping to make it back in time to your car before you get a ticket. [/i]
Ginger, you are absolutely right in your bolded words. This is an either/or situation. Either, as Chuck Roe called it “the every two-hour free parking dance” or a better (but not perfect) solution.
With the suggestion put forward to have downtown businesses provide parking rebates to their customers the situation you describe would for the most part go away. You no longer would be forced to move your car at any time during the duration of your conducting business downtown. You also would not end your shopping day having paid anything for your parking. You go to Davis Ace to get garden supplies and show your parking receipt that came out of the parking payment kiosk and Davis Ace would give you a parking rebate on your purchase. At your next stop at the Paint Chip to pick up art supplies, the same rebate process on your purchase would repeat itself. Next stop Nestware for a gift for your mother’s birthday . . . ba-da-bing ba-da-boom another parking rebate. Finally your lunch at Subway and one more rebate before you return to your car, fold up the stroller, put the bags in the back of the car, and you are off headed for home. Net parking expense = zero.
Growth Izzue
[i]”My question was meant to be facetious as in will some commission go after bikes next? But thank you anyway for you detailed answer. LOL”[/i]
If you were trying to be facetious, you failed miserably. Probably because all you see (and talk about) are problems and complaints. Try proposing solutions for once. You may find that you like it.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”I think ultimately the voters should decide if we want to go to paid parking and whether we build another garage or not. After all, we’re the ones who will mostly be paying for it.”[/i]
Building a parking garage has significant capital cost as such will indeed fall under the category of “we’re the ones who will mostly be paying for it” and as such a citizen vote does make some sense. Deciding to go to paid parking has no capital cost and as such will not fall under the category of “we’re the ones who will mostly be paying for it” and as such I can’t see how a citizen vote makes any sense.
“What are you talking about? It will be much easier to give out parking fine tickets for out of time parked cars than ever before. “
When the city went to using GPS for awhile, the parking fines went way down because of the certainty of punishment. Parking meters work the same way. You know exactly when your meter expires and because of that, you make sure you either put more change in or move your car by the set time. Parking fines will go way down.
“How about the people that want to just drive downtown, pick up a pizza or cup of coffee, then take it home. “
Are those people using the downtown now? My wife gets her coffee to go at Dutch Brothers, our pizza usually not from downtown anyway if it’s to go. On the other hand, a meter would allow people to parking the 30 minute spot and get those things and come home.
Ginger
I have much enjoyed your additions to the Vanguard. Please feel free to “pick” on me. If we didn’t have differences of opinion, then there would be precious little point in reading the Vanguard and posting. Why else do we do this except to see different people’s opinion and express our own ? As to your specific points.
[quote]I have lived in Davis about half as long as you, but I’ve had several instances when I couldn’t find a spot and left the core. Probably because, as you say, you almost always walk downtown?
[/quote]
Nope. Because I only downsized and moved near the core 2 years ago. I raised my children in a home in the “Bird”
streets in North Davis so now I have the perspective of both.
[quote]I’ve said here at Vanguard before that I really hate paying for parking…for the “honor” of spending my money downtown.[/quote]
I have a different perspective on this. I believe that as citizens there are two different aspects to this. I feel that first with regard to community assets, we should be willing to pay for what we personally use. But setting aside this issue, the fact is that we will pay for any solution to this problem. If we choose a parking garage, “we” will pay for its construction and maintenance. If we choose parking meters, we will pay per individual trip. If we do nothing “we” will pay in terms of our time and convenience by having to park further away and walk a bit.
There is no free lunch here, it is just a matter of whether we want individuals to pay at the time of use, or whether we want to spread the costs across the entire community. I guarantee you that I was equally opposed to another parking structure prior to my move to Old East Davis as I am now. However, I will admit to an apparently very high tolerance for parking further away and walking. I honestly cannot remember in my time here ever having abandoned a trip because of lack of parking. That would seem to make me an outlier.
Ginger
[quote] What that response doesn’t address is HOW often those 99.03% plan on visiting downtown again…and how often they would visit again if the current parking didn’t impact their enjoyment[/quote]
That is quite true. While the study was interesting, it was far from comprehensive. There are certainly many nuances of the economic behavior of people, why we shop where we shop, which shoppers spend the most
( probably the most important factor for merchants) and our travel preferences. Also a limited study like this does not get at issues such as which group provides the most revenue for the downtown, those who stop frequently for small items, the coffee/pizza crowd, or those who come less frequently but end up spending significant amounts of time browsing, visiting multiple stores, making impulse purchases, eating out, maybe catching a movie. To decide the impact of the 7.2 that GI rightfully called me on, one would have to consider all of these issues. What one would have to have to make a rationale decision ( as opposed to just my personal opinion as a non planner) is the answers to all those, and probably many more questions. Maybe they are all out there and have been considered thoroughly by someone and I am just not aware ? I certainly hope so.
Matt:
[quote]If you were trying to be facetious, you failed miserably. Probably because all you see (and talk about) are problems and complaints. Try proposing solutions for once. You may find that you like it. [/quote]
No, I think it’s more of a case of you can’t help yourself and the Besserwisser always comes out.
David
[quote]On the other hand, a meter would allow people to parking the 30 minute spot and get those things and come home. [/quote]
My takeout food comment was in reply to Medwoman’s suggestion that the whole downtown core be made pedestrian only and everyone would have to park on the perimeter. I often drive downtown to get takeout food of many different varieties.
Ginger
I concur with medwoman. You are a very positive and enjoyable addition to the Vanguard. may we all have may happy returns of your contributions.
I also concur with the rest of her thoughts If we didn’t have differences of opinion, then there would be little point in reading the Vanguard and posting. We all appear to be doing our postings in order to promote community dialogue and see the various opinions that drive that dialogue. Keep the cards and letters coming is my mantra . . . even for (and from) Growth Izzue. 8>)
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”No, I think it’s more of a case of you can’t help yourself and the Besserwisser always comes out.”[/i]
I’ll accept that criticism in the spirit it is given, although Sabe Lo Todo might have been a more California-centric choice of a phrase.
With that said, your comment shows that you really don’t know me very well. I firmly believe that the best solutions to problems rarely come from a single individual asserting besserwisser on everyone else. They come from consensus-building and collaboration. I think of my self as much less a besserwisser, but more a geistesblitzer. When those blitzes come, some of them are good and some of them are not so good, but even the ones that are not so good promote dialogue . . . and dialogue is the core of consensus-building and collaboration. So many of my geistesblitz moments are followed by the phrase “I may be wrong but here”s a thought we might want to consider. . . ” Sometimes the ideas I throw out into the conversation are intended to empower those who know a whole lot more than me about the subject to share their thoughts, insight and knowledge on the problem we are facing. That helps us begin to frame solutions. I firmly believe that identifying problems is not enough. Identifying problems and possible solutions is much more constructive. Identifying problems and building consensus solutions is even more constructive.
Matt
[quote]I firmly believe that identifying problems is not enough. Identifying problems and possible solutions is much more constructive. Identifying problems and building consensus solutions is even more constructive.[/quote]
I share this philosophy with you whole heartedly. However, my perception is that there are those who post here who are not in agreement with this approach. Frankly would seem to me to exemplify a perspective that what you have stated is a paralyzing process that depends too much upon consensus and two little upon individual rapid decision making, what he would call leadership and implementation.
Frankly, or anyone else, please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position.
medwoman, I don’t disagree with you. That highlights the value of collaboration.
Collaboration in partnership with consensus-building more often than not mitigates the damage that analysis paralysis can cause.
Bottom-line, we need both. Identifying problems and building consensus solutions through collaboration is even more constructive.
[i]Frankly, or anyone else, please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position.[/i]
You have it backwards.
Cooperative decision-making relies on shared goals. Sometimes goals that can be shared are less prominent than others in conflict and a consensus decision can be crafted along those more minor goals. However this can lead to painfully slow progress solving problems. Strong leaders will facilitate cooperative decision-making to move forward on incremental progress when there is no urgency demand, or in the case where there is too much conflict on the greater goals. However, strong leaders will also take responsibility for top-down decision-making when there is urgency, or when the assessment of risks of damage from doing nothing is too great.
You can identify weak leaders as those that seek consensus for critical decisions having personal risks, blame others for the problems they are appointed or hired to solve, bully opposition and foment divisions, make top-down decisions that should be cooperatively made only because they can.
To decide on parking meters in a cooperative-fashion, I think we need to first admit that we have two groups of people with a conflict in base goals: one wants a more pedestrian and bike-friendly down town, and the other wants there to be more convenience for automobile traffic in and out of downtown. My guess is that more of the people in the first group live within easy walking or biking distance to the downtown. And, those in the second group live well outside the core area. Regardless, I think it is this dichotomy of vision-goals for the downtown that is the root of much decision-making paralysis related to city economic development policy.
My perspective on this is that we should have a greater sense of urgency related to all city-wide economic development. For one, the Internet is kicking local retail’s ass on selection, price and convenience. Have you ever heard of Amazon.com “one-click”. I can literally click a button and the product shows up on my doorstep in a day or two. No parking challenges there. Two – I firmly believe that we are heading into a technology-driven reformation of the business of education. If you are up to speed on the investment dollars currently flowing into that industry, you would agree that big change is brewing. Basically, education has screwed up making itself a target with every increasing consumer costs. There is a lot of money to be made, and investors are excited about taking it away from all the over-compensated college administrators. So, the other aspect of urgency is a declining UCD business.
To meter or not to meter should be part of the larger economic development strategy for the town. My personal view is to keep parking plentiful and free and Davis should advertise that to consumers to come and shop. But then that would mean more traffic and more people… and frankly I think those people living in and around the core area have a goal to prevent it. They like their little village and will defend it even as the city’s finances migrate more and more into the red. In fact, they would even support tax increases that the rest of us would pay to protect their village lifestyle.
So, with this conflict in goals, I think we are going to need some top-down leadership. Basically we have a vocal and active group of residents that will never support anything that risks changing their little village… even at the expense of life for the rest of us.
I find all the discussion about the adequacy of parking space slightly off the mark. Recent analysis reveals a large part (25%) of core area traffic is circling in an effort to locate parking and many of the spaces are occupied by employees. The first thing we need is an approach with both a long term and short term focus. In the short term the effort should concentrate on organizing the present situation by providing free remote parking by permit for employees of downtown enterprises and simultaneously institutes a progressively expensive metering system related to both time of congestion and location of congestion. Along with this we need a campaign which encourages consolidation of downtown trips as well as walking and biking. Then a long term effort should be institutionalized in the City’s planning process to require off street (underground or rooftop) parking in future development.
[quote]My perspective on this is that we should have a greater sense of urgency related to all city-wide economic development. For one, the Internet is kicking local retail’s ass on selection, price and convenience. Have you ever heard of Amazon.com “one-click”. I can literally click a button and the product shows up on my doorstep in a day or two.[/quote]
I agree with this portion of your post, but as usual, I think that we disagree on the implications of this for future planning. I use Amazon.com “one-click” all the time. As does my partner and our collective four children.
I see this form of purchasing as ever increasing. What I foresee however, is that this will mean that in terms of retail, big box stores are likely to be out dated sooner than are small mom and pop operations. I believe this because if what is desired is convenience, on line shopping will trump not only the local retailers, but also the big boxes. After all, one still has to drive to one, park, unpack the strollers and kids as Ginger puts it, and walk across the parking lot, then reverse the process, while a few well placed clicks will do the same at home.
Also, local stores have an advantage that the big boxes don’t. The warm and fuzzy personal and unique touch.
Borders failed. The Avid Reader persists.
So what I would see as the most successful strategy would be to build on unique strengths rather than old car and big box models of convenience and efficiency, both of which I think are doomed by the internet.
I would like to see downtown businesses focused on providing the unique experience and catering to the supply of students provided by the University. Even if, as you say, there is an educational bubble break, I do not believe that this particular university with its heavy agricultural emphasis will experience collapse. Downsizing, maybe,
collapse, no.
So what we are really betting on here is whose version of what happens to our overall shopping, patterns of material consumption and changing view of convenience prevails. My prediction is that the old view of our society as automobile based is rapidly changing and that we should not permanently alter our downtown in such a way as to further promote an unhealthy, environmentally, and soon to be obsolete ( at least in the form that we think of it now) means of accomplishing our shopping goals at a time when a demonstrably more convenient and efficient technology is coming into play. I also think that your quoting Amazon is quite ironic
since I have been mentioning this in a number of posts for quite some time now with no response from you previously to indicate that you think this could have a major impact. Perhaps you simply haven’t been reading my posts ! I am not so grandiose as to make that assumption, even if you have responded to snippets of the same posts ; )
Leave the parking free and figure out a way to get the employees off the streets. I’m sure that would free hundreds of spots. How do you get the employees off the streets?
Possibilities:
Dedicate the top floor(s) of the two downtown garages to employees only.
Make it mandatory that employees park in the garages or face a stiff fine.
Have employers make it mandatory that their employees park in the garages or the employers pay a fine.
GI, if we could get compliance that would be a good solution, but history says that getting compliance with your suggestion is exceedingly difficult.
First, you have to force employees to register their cars with the City. Many privacy advocates will decry that as an unwarranted intrusion of privacy.
Second, you have all the restaurant employees whose taking up of parking spaces takes place after the hours where the City pays its enforcement employees to enforce. Do you propose that parking enforcement extend its patrolling all the Davis downtown streets until 9:00 PM? Instead of reducing the cost of patrolling, as I think metering will do, you are increasing the costs.
Third, don’t you think it strange that the current set of downtown Davis employers haven’t stepped up with this idea? It seems like even the businesses think it is unworkable . . . and they are the ones who would benenfit from freeing up parking spaces for their customers.
So increased intrusion into people’s privacy and increased costs and no interest from the business community are the good arguments against your idea.
Hey Matt, back at cha:
[quote]When you are prepared to try and contribute in a constructive way toward solving problems, not just pointing them out, then you will be a wortthwhile member of the Davis community[/quote]
Matt, if we were to go with your idea of making everyone pay parking fees, including employees, and get rebates from the stores where people shop to refund their parking costs [b]what’s to keep the employees from refunding their own parking costs to themselves?[/b] So nothing changes, the employees still park on the street and issue parking refunds to themselves through the stores where they work.
Secondly, since the enforcement hours are already likely to change to 8:00pm what’s another hour later with maybe overlapping shifts if you think the 8:00 to 9:00 hour is so critical. I think you’re wrong there because most employees have already parked and started their evening jobs before 8:00pm anyway. But, what do I know, you’re the expert.
Glad to have your “back at” GI. Love the contribution.
Good question. The key is that the rebate would be tied to a purchase. So if an employee wants to get a time-limited rebate for a portion of their work day by purchasing something from their employer, then far be it from me to legislate that away. However, there are at least three practical considerations that will more than likely cause that scenario to happen very seldom, if at all.
1) Employees will se no reason to spend money twice (once at the meter and once at their employer’s business) , and then STILL have to move their car in the “dance.” They would be much more likely to park once in one of the two peripheral garages and not have to worry about moving their car.
2) Employers really want [u]customers[/u] to be using the parking spaces, so they will frown on, if not outright forbid, their employees completing such a transaction when it means that in so doing a parking space is denied to one of their customers.
3) Taking a page from your book, parking for the employees in the garages should be at a reduced rate, or even free if they are working.
Do you agree?
I agree with you that expanded enforcement hours will be happening regardless, but watching the enforcement vehicles speed through Sacramento looking at the stickers stuck to the drivers side windows of parked cars, the number of enforcement officers is more than likely to be less than there are now. That is my belief, and I could be wrong in that belief.
2)
Matt:
[quote]2) Employers really want customers to be using the parking spaces, so they will frown on, if not outright forbid, their employees completing such a transaction when it means that in so doing a parking space is denied to one of their customers. [/quote]
So now all of a sudden employers will have great oversight over their employees when they can’t even get them to park where they want them too.
[quote]Employees will se no reason to spend money twice (once at the meter and once at their employer’s business) , and then STILL have to move their car in the “dance.” They would be much more likely to park once in one of the two peripheral garages and not have to worry about moving their car.
[/quote]
Comeon, how many shoppers never ask or take their receipts. I’m sure it will be no problem for employees to get ahold of someone else’s receipt or tie their parking ticket into a customer’s receipt that isn’t asking for a parking rebate. You must think they’re stupid, they’ll never have to purchase anything.
Lastly, since the talk is $1 per hour what’s to keep employees, that can’t or won’t cheat the system, from just paying the $8 dollars daily and leaving their cars parked all day on the streets?
There are so many holes in what you are trying to put forward.
No one said it was perfect, but if the garage parking is $2 per 8 hours rather than $8 per 8 hours on the street, don’t you think capitalism will triumph?
Is your solution “hole free”?
What you are missing about the employers role in this is that in the current system there is no financial transaction between the employer and the employee with respect to parking. Therefore the employer has no leverage over the employees? However if a parking credit is going to be rung up on the cash register and appear as a line item on the customer’s receipt, then the employer does indeed have skin in the game.
Employees won’t be able to physically pick up a cashed out, printed receipt and add a parking credit to it ex-post-facto. That transaction will only be able to be entered before the sale is rung up.
So, again, how do the “holes” in the current system stack up to your perceived “holes” in the system Chuck Roe has proposed?
These refunds/rebates all sound like a serious hassle, probably not practical to implement.
My inclination is that the city council, having punted originally on this issue by forming a task force — and probably killing any parking garage in the process — should probably just adopt whatever recommendation this task force has come up with. They’ve had the input of the business owners and various other interest groups.